>>514666598
>There's no reason to believe Deuteronomy 22:28–29 is discussing rape.
i lean toward it not being about rape, but i don't see it as an impossibility.
i'd rather just point out that even if it is about rape, it's a good practice rather than try to explain why that translation is slightly less likely the case.
look at how convoluted the NET TL note is for this passage.
>>514667397
i bet.
i'm glad Christianity put an end to this barbaric pagan practice.